User:Madig23/Celia Hunter/Novy B L Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) MadiG23
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Celia M. Hunter

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead is very concise and accurate to the contents of the article, but it is shorter than many other leads. It includes no description of the many sections of the article and gives very simple, bare-bones information about Celia Hunter. It's a good very brief overview, and includes no extra information, but it could be longer.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

Madi has added a tremendous amount of information -- the article appears significantly longer than the original, although I cannot check to verify its exact differences. All of it is relevant and up-to-date, although since Celia Hunter died nearly twenty years ago it's not like new information about her is likely to come out. It does indeed deal with an equity gap -- Celia Hunter is a woman who contributed a lot to a usually male-led field, and she is also Alaskan, and there are not many articles on famous or important Alaskans. Her contributions to the state's history have been significant, and yet I only knew about her because my dad told me about her -- we did not learn about her in school. So the amount of information added is extremely useful.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

There are a number of direct quotes from either Hunter or Wood, which makes me question the neutrality. However, the article does not seem to be biased other than that. It's hard, when writing about an environmentalist, to not be biased towards environmentalism; I think Madi did a good job with this tricky subject. She is obviously not in favor of the projects Hunter fought against, and that's my most significant tone complaint.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

As previously mentioned, several parts of the article include direct quotes, sometimes a few sentences, from either Hunter or her close friend Ginny Wood. This is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines; it's a primary source, especially the quotes from Hunter herself. However, the sources do reflect the current (paltry) state of affairs, meaning there are not many sources out there that are not primary. Links work,, but a lot of them include the note "missing or empty," and I'm not sure what that means.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The new content is well organized and clear. It does get rambly in sections -- there are whole parts that are not dedicated to Hunter, but instead describe the Rampart Dam and Project Chariot fights. These sections might be better placed on those pages. There are a few spelling and grammar errors, mostly capitalization. It is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

The article includes three images; one of Hunter, one of female Air Force pilots, and one of Mt Denali. The images are relevant and well captioned, and they are visually appealing. They are fair use or public domain images, all but the one of Hunter from Wikimedia commons.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The article is much more complete and is much longer, which is impressive due to the dearth of information on this topic. In parts it loses its neutrality or occasionally goes off topic; sections of the article might fit better in different Wikipedia articles. Other than that, it was very well done and looks good; hopefully this will help more people be aware of her contributions to the state.